The Eighth Amendment was adopted, as part of the Bill of Rights, in 1791, it is almost identical to a provision in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, in which Parliament declared, "as their ancestors in like cases have usually done...that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."[3]

The provision was largely inspired by the case in England of Titus Oates who, after the ascension of King James II in 1685, was tried for multiple acts of perjury which had caused many executions of people whom Oates had wrongly accused. Oates was sentenced to imprisonment including an annual ordeal of being taken out for two days pillory plus one day of whipping while tied to a moving cart, the Oates case eventually became a topic of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence,[4] the punishment of Oates involved ordinary penalties collectively imposed in a barbaric, excessive and bizarre manner.[5] The reason why the judges in Oates' perjury case were not allowed to impose the death penalty (unlike in the cases of those whom Oates had falsely accused) may be because such a punishment would have deterred even honest witnesses from testifying in later cases.[6]

England’s declaration against "cruel and unusual punishments" was approved by Parliament in February 1689, and was read to King William III and his wife Queen Mary II on the following day.[7] Members of Parliament then explained in August 1689 that "the Commons had a particular regard…when that Declaration was first made" to punishments like the one that had been inflicted by the King's Bench against Titus Oates.[7] Parliament then enacted the English Bill of Rights into law in December 1689.[7] Members of parliament characterized the punishment in the Oates case as not just "barbarous" and "inhuman" but also "extravagant" and "exorbitant".[8]

[H]owever unlimited the power of the court may seem, it is far from being wholly arbitrary; but its discretion is regulated by law. For the bill of rights has particularly declared, that excessive fines ought not to be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted: (which had a retrospect to some unprecedented proceedings in the court of king's bench, in the reign of king James the second)....[9]

Virginians such as George Mason and Patrick Henry wanted to ensure that this restriction would also be applied as a limitation on Congress. Mason warned that, otherwise, Congress may "inflict unusual and severe punishments."[11] Henry emphasized that Congress should not be allowed to depart from precedent:

What has distinguished our ancestors?--That they would not admit of tortures, or cruel and barbarous punishment. But Congress may introduce the practice of the civil law, in preference to that of the common law, they may introduce the practice of France, Spain, and Germany....[12]

Ultimately, Henry and Mason prevailed, and the Eighth Amendment was adopted. James Madison changed "ought" to "shall", when he proposed the amendment to Congress in 1789.[10]

In England, sheriffs originally determined whether to grant bail to criminal suspects, since they tended to abuse their power, Parliament passed a statute in 1275 whereby bailable and non-bailable offenses were defined. The King's judges often subverted the provisions of the law, it was held that an individual may be held without bail upon the Sovereign's command. Eventually, the Petition of Right of 1628 argued that the King did not have such authority. Later, technicalities in the law were exploited to keep the accused imprisoned without bail even where the offenses were bailable; such loopholes were for the most part closed by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. Thereafter, judges were compelled to set bail, but they often required impracticable amounts. Finally, the English Bill of Rights (1689) held that "excessive bail ought not to be required." Nevertheless, the Bill did not determine the distinction between bailable and non-bailable offenses. Thus, the Eighth Amendment has been interpreted to mean that bail may be denied if the charges are sufficiently serious, the Supreme Court has also permitted "preventive" detention without bail. In United States v. Salerno, 481U.S.739 (1987), the Supreme Court held that the only limitation imposed by the bail clause is that "the government's proposed conditions of release or detention not be 'excessive' in light of the perceived evil." In Stack v. Boyle, 342U.S.1 (1951), the Supreme Court declared that a bail amount is "excessive" under the Eighth Amendment if it were "a figure higher than is reasonably calculated" to ensure the defendant's appearance at trial.[13]

The fixing of punishment for crime and penalties for unlawful acts is within the police power of the state, and this Court cannot interfere with state legislation in fixing fines, or judicial action in imposing them, unless so grossly excessive as to amount to deprivation of property without due process of law. Where a state antitrust law fixed penalties at $5,000 a day, and, after verdict of guilty for over 300 days, a defendant corporation was fined over $1,600,000, this Court will not hold that the fine is so excessive as to amount to deprivation of property without due process of law where it appears that the business was extensive and profitable during the period of violation, and that the corporation has over $40,000,000 of assets and has declared dividends amounting to several hundred percent

The Court further stated in its opinion:

[I]t is contended that the fines imposed are so excessive as to constitute a taking of the defendant's property without due process of law. It is not contended in this connection that the prohibition of the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution against excessive fines operates to control the legislation of the states, the fixing of punishment for crime or penalties for unlawful acts against its laws is within the police power of the state. We can only interfere with such legislation and judicial action of the states enforcing it if the fines imposed are so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law.

In Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas the Supreme Court set up a standard for judging whether or not a fine is "excessive." The standard set up is that a fine must not be "so grossly excessive as to amount to deprivation of property without due process of law." In other words, the government must not be able to confiscate such a large amount of property without following an established set of rules created by the legislature.[14]

In Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, 492U.S.257 (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause does not apply "when the government neither has prosecuted the action nor has any right to receive a share of the damages awarded." While punitive damages in civil cases are not covered by the Excessive Fines Clause, such damages were held to be covered by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, notably in State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003). [15]

In United States v. Bajakajian, 524U.S.321 (1998), the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to confiscate $357,144 from Hosep Bajakajian who failed to report possession of over $10,000 while leaving the United States.[16] In what was the first case in which the Supreme Court ruled a fine to violate the Excessive Fines Clause,[17] the Court held that it was "grossly disproportional" to take all of the money which Mr. Bajakajian attempted to take out of the United States, in violation of a federal law that required him to report an amount in excess of $10,000; in describing what constituted "gross disproportionality," the Court could not find any guidance from the history of the Excessive Fines Clause and so relied on Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause case law:

We must therefore rely on other considerations in deriving a constitutional excessiveness standard, and there are two that we find particularly relevant, the first, which we have emphasized in our cases interpreting the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, is that judgments about the appropriate punishment for an offense belong in the first instance to the legislature. See, e.g., Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290 (1983) ("Reviewing courts ... should grant substantial deference to the broad authority that legislatures necessarily possess in determining the types and limits of punishments for crimes"); see also Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 393 (1958) ("Whatever views may be entertained regarding severity of punishment, ... these are peculiarly questions of legislative policy"). The second is that any judicial determination regarding the gravity of a particular criminal offense will be inherently imprecise. Both of these principles counsel against requiring strict proportionality between the amount of a punitive forfeiture and the gravity of a criminal offense, and we therefore adopt the standard of gross disproportionality articulated in our Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause precedents. See, e.g., Solem v. Helm, supra, at 288; Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 271 (1980).

Thus the Court declared that, within the context of judicial deference to the legislature's power to set punishments, a fine would not offend the Eighth Amendment unless it were "grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant's offense." [13]

According to the Supreme Court, the Eighth Amendment forbids some punishments entirely, and forbids some other punishments that are excessive when compared to the crime, or compared to the competence of the perpetrator.

Justice Potter Stewart's opinion for the Robinson Court held that "infliction of cruel and unusual punishment is in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, such as John Bingham, had discussed this subject:

Many instances of State injustice and oppression have already occurred in the State legislation of this Union, of flagrant violations of the guarantied privileges of citizens of the United States, for which the national Government furnished and could furnish by law no remedy whatever. Contrary to the express letter of your Constitution, "cruel and unusual punishments" have been inflicted under State laws within this Union upon citizens, not only for crimes committed, but for sacred duty done, for which and against which the Government of the United States had provided no remedy and could provide none.[19]

"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."

"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

Justice Brennan also wrote that he expected no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a "cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles; in this way, the United States Supreme Court "set the standard that a punishment would be cruel and unusual [if] it was too severe for the crime, [if] it was arbitrary, if it offended society's sense of justice, or if it was not more effective than a less severe penalty."[20]

The case of Weems v. United States, 217U.S.349 (1910), marked the first time that the Supreme Court exercised judicial review to overturn a criminal sentence as cruel and unusual.[22] The Court overturned a punishment called cadena temporal, which mandated "hard and painful labor," shackling for the duration of incarceration, and permanent civil disabilities, this case is often viewed as establishing a principle of proportionality under the Eighth Amendment.[23] However, others have written that "it is hard to view Weems as announcing a constitutional requirement of proportionality."[24]

In Trop v. Dulles, 356U.S.86 (1958), the Supreme Court held that punishing a natural-born citizen for a crime by revoking his citizenship is unconstitutional, being "more primitive than torture" because it involved the "total destruction of the individual's status in organized society."

In Robinson v. California, 370U.S.660 (1962), the Court decided that a California law authorizing a 90-day jail sentence for "be[ing] addicted to the use of narcotics" violated the Eighth Amendment, as narcotics addiction "is apparently an illness," and California was attempting to punish people based on the state of this illness, rather than for any specific act. The Court wrote:

"To be sure, imprisonment for ninety days is not, in the abstract, a punishment which is either cruel or unusual. But the question cannot be considered in the abstract. Even one day in prison would be a cruel and unusual punishment for the 'crime' of having a common cold."

However, in Powell v. Texas, 392U.S.514 (1968), the Court upheld a statute barring public intoxication by distinguishing Robinson on the basis that Powell dealt with a person who was drunk in public, not merely for being addicted to alcohol.[25]

Traditionally, the length of a prison sentence was not subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, regardless of the crime for which the sentence was imposed, it was not until the case of Solem v. Helm, 463U.S.277 (1983), that the Supreme Court held that incarceration, standing alone, could constitute cruel and unusual punishment if it were "disproportionate" in duration to the offense. The Court outlined three factors that were to be considered in determining if the sentence is excessive: "(i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions." The Court held that in the circumstances of the case before it and the factors to be considered, a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for cashing a $100 check on a closed account was cruel and unusual.

However, in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501U.S.957 (1991), a fractured Court retreated from the Solem test and held that for non-capital sentences, the Eighth Amendment only constrains the length of prison terms by a "gross disproportionality principle." Under this principle, the Court sustained a mandatory sentence of life without parole imposed for possession of 672 grams (1.5 pounds) or more of cocaine. The Court acknowledged that a punishment could be cruel but not unusual, and therefore not prohibited by the Constitution.[26][27] Additionally, in Harmelin, Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, said "the Eighth Amendment contains no proportionality guarantee," and that "what was 'cruel and unusual' under the Eighth Amendment was to be determined without reference to the particular offense." Scalia wrote "If 'cruel and unusual punishments' included disproportionate punishments, the separate prohibition of disproportionate fines (which are certainly punishments) would have been entirely superfluous." Moreover, "There is little doubt that those who framed, proposed, and ratified the Bill of Rights were aware of such provisions [outlawing disproportional punishments], yet chose not to replicate them."

In Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), the Supreme Court declared that a life sentence without any chance of parole, for a crime other than murder, is cruel and unusual punishment for a minor.[28][29] Two years later, in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), the Court went further, holding that mandatory life sentences without parole cannot be imposed on minors, even for homicide.[30]

In Coker v. Georgia, 433U.S.584 (1977), the Court declared that the death penalty was unconstitutionally excessive for rape of a woman and, by implication, for any crime where a death does not occur. The majority in Coker stated that "death is indeed a disproportionate penalty for the crime of raping an adult woman." The dissent countered that the majority "takes too little account of the profound suffering the crime imposes upon the victims and their loved ones." The dissent also characterized the majority as "myopic" for only considering legal history of "the past five years".

In Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), the Court extended the reasoning of Coker by ruling that the death penalty was excessive for child rape "where the victim’s life was not taken."[31] The Supreme Court failed to note a federal law, which applies to military court-martial proceedings, providing for the death penalty in cases of child rape,[32] on October 1, 2008, the Court declined to reconsider its opinion in this case, but did amend the majority and dissenting opinions in order to acknowledge that federal law. Justice Scalia (joined by Chief Justice Roberts) wrote in dissent that "the proposed Eighth Amendment would have been laughed to scorn if it had read 'no criminal penalty shall be imposed which the Supreme Court deems unacceptable.'"[33]

The first significant general challenge to capital punishment that reached the Supreme Court was the case of Furman v. Georgia, 408U.S.238 (1972). In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the death sentences of Furman for murder, as well as two other defendants for rape. Of the five justices voting to overturn the death penalty, two found capital punishment to be unconstitutionally cruel and unusual, while three found that the statutes at issue were implemented in a random and capricious fashion, discriminating against blacks and the poor. Furman v. Georgia did not hold – even though it is sometimes claimed that it did – that capital punishment is per se unconstitutional.[34]

States with capital punishment rewrote their laws to address the Supreme Court's decision, and the Court then revisited the issue in a murder case: Gregg v. Georgia, 428U.S.153 (1976). In Gregg, the Court found, in a 7–2 ruling, that Georgia's new death penalty laws passed Eighth Amendment scrutiny: the statutes provided a bifurcated trial in which guilt and sentence were determined separately; and, the statutes provided for "specific jury findings" followed by state supreme court review comparing each death sentence "with the sentences imposed on similarly situated defendants to ensure that the sentence of death in a particular case is not disproportionate." Because of the Gregg decision, executions resumed in 1977.

Some states have passed laws imposing mandatory death penalties in certain cases, the Supreme Court found these laws to be unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, in the murder case of Woodson v. North Carolina, 428U.S.280 (1976), because these laws remove discretion from the trial judge to make an individualized determination in each case.[35] Other statutes specifying factors for courts to use in making their decisions have been upheld, some have not: in Godfrey v. Georgia, 446U.S.420 (1980), the Supreme Court overturned a sentence based upon a finding that a murder was "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman," as it deemed that any murder may be reasonably characterized in this manner. Similarly, in Maynard v. Cartwright, 486U.S.356 (1988), the Court found that an "especially heinous, atrocious or cruel" standard in a homicide case was too vague. However, the meaning of this language depends on how lower courts interpret it; in Walton v. Arizona, 497U.S.639 (1990), the Court found that the phrase "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved" was not vague in a murder case, because the state supreme court had expounded on its meaning.[36]

The Court has generally held that death penalty cases require extra procedural protections, as the Court said in Herrera v. Collins, 506U.S.390 (1993), which involved the murder of a police officer, "the Eighth Amendment requires increased reliability of the process..."

In Harmelin v. Michigan, 501U.S.957 (1991), the Court upheld a life sentence without the possibility of parole for possession of 672 grams (1.5 pounds) of cocaine.

In Lockyer v. Andrade, 538U.S.63 (2003), the Court upheld a 50 years to life sentence with the possibility of parole imposed under California's three strikes law when the defendant was convicted of shoplifting videotapes worth a total of about $150.

In Trop v. Dulles, 356U.S.86 (1958), Chief Justice Earl Warren said: "The [Eighth] Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Subsequently, the Court has looked to societal developments, as well as looking to its own independent judgment, in determining what are those "evolving standards of decency".[38]

Originalists like Justice Antonin Scalia argue that societies may rot instead of maturing, and may decrease in virtue or wisdom instead of increasing. Thus, they say, the framers wanted the amendment to be understood as it was written and ratified, instead of morphing as times change, and in any event legislators are more competent than judges to take the pulse of the public as to changing standards of decency.[39]

The "evolving standards" test is not without its scholarly critics as well, for example, Professor John Stinneford asserts that the "evolving standards" test misinterprets the Eighth Amendment:

The Framers of the Bill of Rights understood the word "unusual" to mean "contrary to long usage." Recognition of the word’s original meaning will precisely invert the "evolving standards of decency" test, and ask the Court to compare challenged punishments with the longstanding principles and precedents of the common law, rather than shifting and nebulous notions of "societal consensus" and contemporary "standards of decency."[40]

On the other hand, Professor Dennis Baker defends the evolving standards of decency test as advancing the moral purpose of the Eighth Amendment to ban all forms of unjust punishment.[41]

The Court has applied evolving standards not only to say what punishments are inherently cruel, but also to say what punishments that are not inherently cruel are nevertheless "grossly disproportionate" to the offense in question.[38] An example can be seen in Jackson v. Bishop (8th Cir., 1968), an Eighth Circuit decision outlawing corporal punishment in the Arkansas prison system: "The scope of the Amendment is not static....[D]isproportion, both among punishments and between punishment and crime, is a factor to be considered...."[42]

Professor Stinneford asserts that the Eighth Amendment forbids punishments that are very disproportionate to the offense, even if the punishment by itself is not intrinsically barbaric, but Stinneford argues that "proportionality is to be measured primarily in terms of prior practice" according to the word "unusual" in the amendment, instead of being measured according to shifting and nebulous evolving standards.[8] Similarly, Professor John Bessler points to "An Essay on Crimes and Punishments," written by Cesare Beccaria in the 1760s, which advocated proportionate punishments; many of the Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, read Beccaria's treatise and were influenced by it.[43][44]

Thus, Stinneford and Bessler disagree with the view of Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, in Harmelin v. Michigan where they denied that the Punishments Clause contains any proportionality principle.[45] With Scalia and Rehnquist, Richard Epstein argues that the amendment does not refer broadly to the imposition of penalties, but rather refers more narrowly to the penalties themselves; Epstein says that judges who favor the broad view tend to omit the letter "s" at the end of the word "punishments".[46]

[E]ven if one stacked up all of Oates’s punishments together—the fine, the whippings, the imprisonment, the pillorying, and the defrockment—their cumulative effect was less harsh as an absolute matter than some punishments considered acceptable at the time, such as drawing and quartering or burning at the stake. If the punishments inflicted on Oates were unacceptably cruel, this could only be because they were disproportionate to the crime of perjury.

But, says Stinneford, punishment is unacceptable only if it is "both cruel and 'contrary to long usage'". Id. at 977 (emphasis added).

^John D. Bessler, The Birth of American Law: An Italian Philosopher and the American Revolution (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press)

^Harmelin v. Michigan, 501U.S.957 (1991). Scalia wrote: "If 'cruel and unusual punishments' included disproportionate punishments, the separate prohibition of disproportionate fines (which are certainly punishments) would have been entirely superfluous." Moreover, "There is little doubt that those who framed, proposed, and ratified the Bill of Rights were aware of such provisions [outlawing disproportional punishments], yet chose not to replicate them."

1.
United States Constitution
–
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. The Constitution, originally comprising seven articles, delineates the national frame of government, Articles Four, Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship to the federal government. Article Seven establishes the procedure used by the thirteen States to ratify it. In general, the first ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, offer specific protections of individual liberty, the majority of the seventeen later amendments expand individual civil rights protections. Others address issues related to federal authority or modify government processes and procedures, Amendments to the United States Constitution, unlike ones made to many constitutions worldwide, are appended to the document. All four pages of the original U. S, according to the United States Senate, The Constitutions first three words—We the People—affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. From September 5,1774 to March 1,1781, the Continental Congress functioned as the government of the United States. The process of selecting the delegates for the First and Second Continental Congresses underscores the revolutionary role of the people of the colonies in establishing a governing body. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first constitution of the United States and it was drafted by the Second Continental Congress from mid-1776 through late-1777, and ratification by all 13 states was completed by early 1781. Under the Articles of Confederation, the governments power was quite limited. The Confederation Congress could make decisions, but lacked enforcement powers, implementation of most decisions, including modifications to the Articles, required unanimous approval of all thirteen state legislatures. The Continental Congress could print money but the currency was worthless, Congress could borrow money, but couldnt pay it back. No state paid all their U. S. taxes, some paid nothing, some few paid an amount equal to interest on the national debt owed to their citizens, but no more. No interest was paid on debt owed foreign governments, by 1786, the United States would default on outstanding debts as their dates came due. Internationally, the Articles of Confederation did little to enhance the United States ability to defend its sovereignty, most of the troops in the 625-man United States Army were deployed facing – but not threatening – British forts on American soil. They had not been paid, some were deserting and others threatening mutiny, spain closed New Orleans to American commerce, U. S. officials protested, but to no effect. Barbary pirates began seizing American ships of commerce, the Treasury had no funds to pay their ransom, if any military crisis required action, the Congress had no credit or taxing power to finance a response. Domestically, the Articles of Confederation was failing to bring unity to the sentiments and interests of the various states

2.
Article One of the United States Constitution
–
Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. The Congress is a legislature consisting of a House of Representatives. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, Section 1 is a vesting clause that bestows federal legislative power exclusively to Congress. Similar clauses are found in Articles II and III, the former confers executive power upon the President alone, and the latter grants judicial power solely to the federal judiciary. These three articles create a separation of powers among the three branches of the federal government and this separation of powers, by which each department may exercise only its own constitutional powers and no others, is fundamental to the idea of a limited government accountable to the people. The separation of powers principle is particularly noteworthy in regard to the Congress, the Constitution declares that the Congress may exercise only those legislative powers herein granted within Article I. It also, by implied extension, prohibits Congress from delegating its authority to either of the other branches of government. That the power assigned to each branch must remain with that branch, although not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, Congress has also long asserted the power to investigate and the power to compel cooperation with an investigation. The Supreme Court has affirmed these powers as an implication of Congresss power to legislate, since the power to investigate is an aspect of Congresss power to legislate, it is as broad as Congresss powers to legislate. However, it is limited to inquiries that are in aid of the legislative function. The courts are highly deferential to Congresss exercise of its investigation powers, Congress has the power to investigate that which it could regulate, and the courts have interpreted Congresss regulatory powers broadly since the Great Depression. Section Two provides for the election of the House of Representatives every second year, since Representatives are to be chosen. At the time of its creation, the Constitution did not explicitly give citizens an inherent right to vote, rather, it provided that those qualified to vote in elections for the largest chamber of a states legislature may vote in Congressional elections. Since the Civil War, several amendments have been enacted that have curbed the states broad powers to set voter qualification standards. The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, the Nineteenth Amendment prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex. The Twenty-fourth Amendment prohibits the revocation of voting due to the non-payment of a poll tax. The Twenty-sixth Amendment prohibits the denial of the right of US citizens, eighteen years of age or older, in the 1960s, the Supreme Court started to view voting as a fundamental right covered by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is no requirement that a Representative reside within the district in which he or she represents, although this is usually the case, there have been occasional exceptions

3.
Article Two of the United States Constitution
–
Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government, which carries out and enforces federal laws. It includes the President, the Vice President, the Cabinet, executive departments, independent agencies, and other boards, commissions, the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. Similar clauses are found in Article I and Article III, the former bestows federal legislative power exclusively to Congress, and the latter grants judicial power solely to the Supreme Court. These three articles create a separation of powers among the three branches of the federal government, the Presidents executive power is subject to two important limitations. First, the President lacks executive authority explicitly granted to Congress, hence the President cannot declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, or regulate commerce, even though executives had often wielded such authority in the past. In these instances, Congress retained portions of the power that the Continental Congress had wielded under the Articles of Confederation. Nor were they retained by the U. S. Congress as leftovers from the Articles of Confederation, government considers itself at war with a foreign political entity. By U. S. law, the limitation on that power is a requirement to notify specific members of Congress within 48 hours after the beginning of military operations. Once proper legal notification is given to the members of Congress, military action can continue. Second, specific constitutional provisions may check customary executive authority, notwithstanding his executive power, the President cannot make treaties or appointments without the advice and consent of the Senate. Likewise, the Presidents pardon power is limited to offenses against the United States and does not extend to impeachments or violations of state law. As treaties are by U. S. law official agreements with foreign governments recognized as only after Senate ratification. Additionally, since official treaties are specifically created under and by constitutional U. S. S. as far as presidential appointments, as with treaties a person is not officially and legally appointed to a position until their appointment is approved by the Senate. And again, the President nominates people for positions at his pleasure. Senate consent occurs when a supermajority of votes to approve. The head of the Executive Branch is the President, although also named in this first clause, the Vice President is not constitutionally vested with any executive power. Nonetheless, the Constitution dictates that the President and Vice President are to be elected at the time, for the same term. The framers intent was to preserve the independence of the branch should the person who was Vice President succeed to the duties of the presidency

4.
Article Three of the United States Constitution
–
Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. The judicial branch comprises the Supreme Court of the United States, the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The number of justices is fixed by statute at nine, the one chief justice, proposals to divide the Supreme Court into separate panels have been made, but all have failed. Since all such proposals have failed, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of such a division, however, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote, the Constitution does not appear to authorize two or more Supreme Courts functioning in effect as separate courts. The Supreme Court is the federal court that is explicitly mandated by the Constitution. During the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made for the Supreme Court to be the federal court. This proposal was rejected in favor of the provision that exists today, under this provision, the Congress may create inferior courts under both Article III, Section 1, and Article I, Section 8. The Article III courts, which are known as constitutional courts, were first created by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Article I courts, which are known as legislative courts, consist of regulatory agencies. Article III courts are the ones with judicial power. However, cases not requiring judicial determination may come before Article I courts, other cases, such as bankruptcy cases, have been held not to involve judicial determination, and may therefore go before Article I courts. Similarly, several courts in the District of Columbia, which is under the jurisdiction of the Congress, are Article I courts rather than Article III courts. This article was expressly extended to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico by the U. S. Congress through Federal Law 89-571,80 Stat,764, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966. This transformed the article IV United States territorial court in Puerto Rico, created in 1900, Supreme Court for every sitting member over the age of 70½, up to a maximum of six. The Constitution is silent when it comes to judges of courts which have been abolished, the Judiciary Act of 1801 increased the number of courts to permit the Federalist President John Adams to appoint a number of Federalist judges before Thomas Jefferson took office. When Jefferson became President, the Congress abolished several of these courts, Judicial code of 1911 abolished circuit riding and transferred the circuit courts authority and jurisdiction to the district courts. The Constitution provides that judges shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, the term good behavior is interpreted to mean that judges may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they may resign or retire voluntarily. A judge may also be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote, Three other judges, Mark W. Delahay, George W. English, and Samuel B

5.
Article Five of the United States Constitution
–
Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution, the nations frame of government, may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification, the vote of each state carries equal weight, regardless of a states population or length of time in the Union. Additionally, Article V temporarily shielded certain clauses in Article I from being amended and it also shields the first clause of Article I, Section 3, which provides for equal representation of the states in the Senate, from being amended, though not absolutely. Thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution have been approved by the Congress, twenty-seven of these amendments have been ratified and are now part of the Constitution. The first ten amendments were adopted and ratified simultaneously and are known collectively as the Bill of Rights, six amendments adopted by Congress and sent to the states have not been ratified by the required number of states and are not part of the Constitution. Four of these amendments are still open and pending, one is closed and has failed by its own terms. All totaled, approximately 11,539 measures to amend the Constitution have been proposed in Congress since 1789, Article V provides two methods for amending the nations frame of government. The first method authorizes Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, to propose Constitutional amendments, the second method requires Congress, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, to call a convention for proposing amendments. When the 1st Congress considered a series of amendments, it was suggested that the two houses first adopt a resolution indicating that they deemed amendments necessary. Instead, both the House and the Senate proceeded directly to consideration of a joint resolution, thereby implying that both bodies deemed amendments to be necessary. Also, when proposed by James Madison, the amendments were designed to be interwoven into the relevant sections of the original document. Instead, they were approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification as supplemental additions appended to it, both these precedents have been followed ever since. Regarding the amendment process crafted during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Madison,43, wrote, It guards equally against that extreme facility which would render the Constitution too mutable, and that extreme difficulty which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It moreover equally enables the General and the State Governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, each time the amendment process has been initiated since 1789, the first method has been used. All 33 amendments submitted to the states for ratification originated in the Congress, three times in the 20th century, concerted efforts were undertaken by proponents of particular amendments to secure the number of applications necessary to summon an Article V Convention. Once approved by Congress, the joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment does not require Presidential approval before it out to the states. Thus the president has no function in the process. In Hollingsworth v. Virginia, the Supreme Court affirmed that it is not necessary to place constitutional amendments before the President for approval or veto

6.
United States Bill of Rights
–
The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the oftentimes bitter 1787–88 battle over ratification of the U. S, on June 8,1789, Representative James Madison introduced nine amendments to the constitution in the House of Representatives. Among his recommendations Madison proposed opening up the Constitution and inserting specific rights limiting the power of Congress in Article One, Seven of these limitations would become part of the ten ratified Bill of Rights amendments. Contrary to Madisons original proposal that the articles be incorporated into the body of the Constitution. Articles Three through Twelve were ratified as additions to the Constitution on December 15,1791, Article Two became part of the Constitution on May 5,1992, as the Twenty-seventh Amendment. Article One is technically still pending before the states, the door for their application upon state governments was opened in the 1860s, following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the early 20th century both federal and state courts have used the Fourteenth Amendment to apply portions of the Bill of Rights to state, the process is known as incorporation. There are several original engrossed copies of the Bill of Rights still in existence, One of these is on permanent public display at the National Archives in Washington, D. C. However, the government that operated under the Articles of Confederation was too weak to adequately regulate the various conflicts that arose between the states. The Philadelphia Convention set out to correct weaknesses of the Articles that had been apparent even before the American Revolutionary War had been successfully concluded, the convention took place from May 14 to September 17,1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The convention convened in the Pennsylvania State House, and George Washington of Virginia was unanimously elected as president of the convention, the 55 delegates who drafted the Constitution are among the men known as the Founding Fathers of the new nation. Thomas Jefferson, who was Minister to France during the convention, Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the convention. However, the motion was defeated by a vote of the state delegations after only a brief discussion. Madison, then an opponent of a Bill of Rights, later explained the vote by calling the bills of rights parchment barriers that offered only an illusion of protection against tyranny. The quick rejection of this motion, however, later endangered the entire ratification process, thirty-nine delegates signed the finalized Constitution. Thirteen delegates left before it was completed, and three who remained at the convention until the end refused to sign it, Mason, Gerry, elbridge Gerry wrote the most popular Anti-Federalist tract, Hon. Mr. Gerrys Objections, which went through 46 printings, the essay particularly focused on the lack of a bill of rights in the proposed constitution, many were concerned that a strong national government was a threat to individual rights and that the president would become a king. Jefferson wrote to Madison advocating a Bill of Rights, Half a loaf is better than no bread, if we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can

7.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
–
It was adopted on December 15,1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was originally proposed to assuage Anti-Federalist opposition to Constitutional ratification, initially, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress, and many of its provisions were interpreted more narrowly than they are today. Beginning with Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to states—a process known as incorporation—through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court overturned English common law precedent to increase the burden of proof for defamation and libel suits, commercial speech, however, is less protected by the First Amendment than political speech, and is therefore subject to greater regulation. The Free Press Clause protects publication of information and opinions, in Near v. Minnesota and New York Times v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected against prior restraint—pre-publication censorship—in almost all cases. The Petition Clause protects the right to all branches and agencies of government for action. In addition to the right of assembly guaranteed by this clause, eight of the other thirteen states made similar pledges. However, these declarations were generally considered mere admonitions to state legislatures, after a brief debate, Masons proposal was defeated by a unanimous vote of the state delegations. For the constitution to be ratified, however, nine of the thirteen states were required to approve it in state conventions, opposition to ratification was partly based on the Constitutions lack of adequate guarantees for civil liberties. Constitution was eventually ratified by all thirteen states and this language was greatly condensed by Congress, and passed the House and Senate with almost no recorded debate, complicating future discussion of the Amendments intent. The First Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was submitted to the states for ratification on September 25,1789, and adopted on December 15,1791. In Reynolds v. United States the Supreme Court used these words to declare that it may be accepted almost as a declaration of the scope. Congress was deprived of all power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. In these two sentences is found the distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government, Massachusetts, for example, was officially Congregationalist until the 1830s. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, in the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and State. That wall must be high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach, in Torcaso v. Watkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution prohibits states and the federal government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office

8.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
–
State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep, in the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess. Despite these decisions, the debate between various organizations regarding gun control and gun rights continues, there are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the copies on display, and various published transcriptions. The importance of these differences has been the source of debate regarding the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, one version was passed by the Congress, and a slightly different version was ratified. Ultimately, the Catholic James II was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution, and his successors, the text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 includes language protecting the right of Protestants against disarmament by the Crown. This document states, That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and it also contained text that aspired to bind future Parliaments, though under English constitutional law no Parliament can bind any later Parliament. The statement in the English Bill of Rights concerning the right to arms is often quoted only in the passage where it is written as above. By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law. That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law. The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U. S. Supreme Court. The English Bill of Rights includes the proviso that arms must be as allowed by law and this has been the case before and after the passage of the Bill. Before and after the English Bill of Rights, the government could always disarm any individual or class of individuals it considered dangerous to the peace of the realm. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st.2. Some in the United States have preferred the rights argument arguing that the English Bill of Rights had granted a right, the need to have arms for self-defence was not really in question. Without a regular army and police force, it had been the duty of men to keep watch and ward at night and to confront. Every subject had an obligation to protect the peace and assist in the suppression of riots

9.
Third Amendment to the United States Constitution
–
The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owners consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime. The Third Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison as a part of the United States Bill of Rights, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress proposed the amendment to the states on September 28,1789, and by December 15,1791, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment on March 1,1792. The amendment is one of the least controversial of the Constitution and is rarely litigated, to date, it has never been the primary basis of a Supreme Court decision, though it was the basis of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case Engblom v. Carey. After the Boston Tea Party, the Quartering Act of 1774 was enacted, One of the Intolerable Acts that pushed the colonies toward revolution, it authorized British troops to be housed wherever necessary, including in private homes. The quartering of troops was cited as one of the grievances in the United States Declaration of Independence. George Mason, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the drafter of Virginias Declaration of Rights, after a brief debate, Masons proposal was defeated by a unanimous vote of the state delegations. For the constitution to be ratified, however, nine of the thirteen states were required to approve it in state conventions, opposition to ratification was partly based on the Constitutions lack of adequate guarantees for civil liberties. Several state conventions specifically proposed a provision against the quartering of troops in private homes, at the 1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry stated, One of our first complaints, under the former government, was the quartering of troops among us. This was one of the reasons for dissolving the connection with Great Britain. Here we may have troops in time of peace and they may be billeted in any manner — to tyrannize, oppress, and crush us. However, the amendment ultimately passed Congress almost unchanged and by unanimous vote, Congress reduced Madisons proposed twenty amendments to twelve, and these were submitted to the states for ratification on September 25,1789. By the time the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states for ratification, many Federalists, who had previously opposed a Bill of Rights, now supported the Bill as a means of silencing the Anti-Federalists most effective criticism. Many Anti-Federalists, in contrast, now opposed it, realizing that the Bills adoption would greatly lessen the chances of a constitutional convention. Anti-Federalists such as Richard Henry Lee also argued that the Bill left the most objectionable portions of the Constitution, such as the judiciary and direct taxation. On November 20,1789, New Jersey ratified eleven of the amendments, rejecting Article II. On December 19 and 22, respectively, Maryland and North Carolina ratified all twelve amendments, in February through June 1790, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island ratified eleven of the amendments, though all three rejected the amendment on Congressional pay raises. Virginia initially postponed its debate, but after Vermont was admitted to the Union in 1791, Vermont ratified on November 3,1791, approving all twelve amendments, and Virginia finally followed on December 15,1791

10.
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
–
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the amendments in the Bill of Rights. Congress submitted the amendment to the states on September 28,1789, by December 15,1791, the necessary three-fourths of the states had ratified it. On March 1,1792, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment, the amendment was held to apply to the states in Mapp v. Ohio. Under the Fourth Amendment, search and seizure should be limited in scope according to information supplied to the issuing court. The exclusionary rule is one way the amendment is enforced, established in Weeks v. United States, this rule holds that evidence obtained through a Fourth Amendment violation is generally inadmissible at criminal trials. Evidence discovered as a result of an illegal search may also be inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree. Like many other areas of American law, the Fourth Amendment finds its roots in English legal doctrine. Sir Edward Coke, in Semaynes case, famously stated, The house of one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury. Entick filed suit in Entick v Carrington, argued before the Court of Kings Bench in 1765, during what scholar William Cuddihy called the colonial epidemic of general searches, the authorities possessed almost unlimited power to search for anything at any time, with very little oversight. In 1756, the colony of Massachusetts enacted legislation that barred the use of general warrants and this represented the first law in American history curtailing the use of seizure power. The act also permitted the use of a general warrant known as a writ of assistance, allowing tax collectors to search the homes of colonists and seize prohibited and uncustomed goods. A crisis erupted over the writs of assistance on December 27,1760 when the news of King George IIs death on October 23 arrived in Boston. All writs automatically expired six months after the death of the King and would have had to be re-issued by George III, in mid-January 1761, a group of over 50 merchants represented by James Otis petitioned the court to have hearings on the issue. During the five-hour hearing on February 23,1761, Otis vehemently denounced British colonial policies, however, the court ruled against Otis. Future US President John Adams, who was present in the courtroom when Otis spoke, the governor overturned the legislation, finding it contrary to English law and parliamentary sovereignty. Seeing the danger general warrants presented, the Virginia Declaration of Rights explicitly forbade the use of general warrants, by 1784, eight state constitutions contained a provision against general warrants. George Mason, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the drafter of Virginias Declaration of Rights, after a brief debate, Masons proposal was defeated by a unanimous vote of the state delegations

11.
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
–
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and protects a person from being compelled to be a witness against themselves in a criminal case. A defendant cannot be compelled to become a witness at his own trial, if, however, they choose to testify, they are not entitled to their right, and inferences can be drawn from a refusal to answer a question during cross-examination. The Amendment requires that felonies be tried only upon indictment by a grand jury, federal grand juries can force people to take the witness stand, but defendants in those proceedings have Fifth Amendment privileges until they choose to answer any question. To claim the privilege for failure to answer when being interviewed by police, the Amendments Double Jeopardy Clause provides the right to be tried only once in federal court for the same offense. The Amendment also has a Due Process Clause as well as an equal protection requirement. Finally, the Amendment requires that the power of eminent domain be coupled with just compensation for those whose property is taken and this draft was edited by Congress, all the material before the first ellipsis was placed at the end, and some of the wording was modified. After approval by Congress, the amendment was ratified by the states, the grand jury is a pre-constitutional common law institution, and a constitutional fixture in its own right exclusively embracing common law. The process applies to the states to the extent that the states have incorporated grand juries and/or common law, most states have an alternative civil process. Many constitutional restrictions that apply in court or in other situations do not apply during grand jury proceedings, also, an individual does not have the right to have an attorney present in the grand jury room during hearings. Currently, federal law permits the trial of misdemeanors without indictments, additionally, in trials of non-capital felonies, the prosecution may proceed without indictments if the defendants waive their Fifth Amendment right. Grand jury indictments may be amended by the only in limited circumstances. In Ex Parte Bain,121 U. S.1, United States v. Miller,471 U. S.130 partly reversed Ex parte Bain, now, an indictments scope may be narrowed by the prosecution. Thus, lesser included charges may be dropped, but new charges may not be added, the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not protect those serving in the armed forces, whether during wartime or peacetime. Members of the militia called up to serve with federal forces are not protected under the clause either. In OCallahan v. Parker,395 U. S.258 and that decision was overturned in 1987, when the Court held that members of the militia in actual service may be tried for any offense without indictments. The grand jury indictment clause of the Fifth Amendment has not been incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment and this means that the grand jury requirement applies only to felony charges in the federal court system. While many states do employ grand juries, no defendant has a Fifth Amendment right to a jury for criminal charges in state court. States are free to abolish grand juries, and many have replaced them with preliminary hearing, the historical origin of infamous crime comes from the infamia, a punishment under Roman law by which a citizen was deprived his citizenship

12.
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
–
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Criminal defendants have the right to a speedy trial. In Barker v. Wingo,407 U. S.514, the four factors are, Length of delay. A delay of a year or more from the date on which the speedy trial right attaches was termed presumptively prejudicial, but the Court has never explicitly ruled that any absolute time limit applies. The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right. If a defendant agrees to the delay when it works to his own benefit, degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused. The Court held that, since the trial is the state action which violates the defendants rights. Thus, a reversal or dismissal of a case on speedy trial grounds means that no further prosecution for the alleged offense can take place. In Sheppard v. Maxwell,384 U. S.333, in cases where excess publicity would serve to undermine the defendants right to due process, limitations can be put on public access to the proceedings. According to Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court,478 U. S, the right to a jury has always depended on the nature of the offense with which the defendant is charged. Petty offenses—those punishable by imprisonment for no more than six months—are not covered by the jury requirement, even where multiple petty offenses are concerned, the total time of imprisonment possibly exceeding six months, the right to a jury trial does not exist. Also, in the United States, except for offenses, minors are usually tried in a juvenile court, which lessens the sentence allowed, but forfeits the right to a jury. ”Therefore, it was held that juries had to be composed of twelve persons. When, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court extended the right to a trial by jury to defendants in state courts, the Sixth Amendment mandates unanimity in a federal jury trial. Thus, states are not mandated to require jury unanimity, unless the jury has only six members, the Sixth Amendment requires juries to be impartial. Impartiality has been interpreted as requiring individual jurors to be unbiased, at voir dire, each side may question potential jurors to determine any bias, and challenge them if the same is found, the court determines the validity of these challenges for cause. Defendants may not challenge a conviction because a challenge for cause was denied incorrectly if they had the opportunity to use peremptory challenges. In Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires a court in a trial to investigate whether a jurys guilty verdict was based on racial bias. For a guilty verdict to be based on the racial bias of a juror

13.
Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution
–
The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It is part of the Bill of Rights, the amendment as proposed by Congress in 1789 reads as follows, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Constitution was put to the states for ratification after being signed on September 17,1787, for example, in Federalist 84, Alexander Hamilton asked, Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do. Likewise, James Madison explained to Thomas Jefferson, I conceive that in a certain degree, the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted by Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution. But that they may be construed either as making exceptions to the powers where this shall be the case. This proposal ultimately led to the Ninth Amendment and this is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system, but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution, like Alexander Hamilton, Madison was concerned that enumerating various rights could enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution. This was a form of the Ninth Amendment that borrowed language from the Virginia proposal. The final text of the Ninth Amendment, like Madisons draft, the character of those other rights was indicated by Madison in his speech introducing the Bill of Rights, It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, the Ninth Amendment became part of the Constitution on December 15,1791 upon ratification by three-fourths of the states. The U. S. Supreme Court explained this, in U. S. Public Workers v. Mitchell 330 U. S.75, If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights was enforceable by the courts only against the federal government. Thus, the Ninth Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, some jurists have asserted that the Ninth Amendment is relevant to interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. I do not mean to imply that the, Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Cf. United Public Workers v. Mitchell,330 U. S.75, in support of his interpretation of the Ninth, Goldberg quoted from Madisons speech in the House of Representatives as well as from Alexander Hamiltons Federalist Paper No. 84, I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted, for why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do

14.
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
–
The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15,1791. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people, the amendment was proposed by Congress in 1789 during its first term following the Constitutional Convention and ratification of the Constitution. In drafting this amendment, its framers had two purposes in mind, first, as a rule of construction, and second. When a vote on this version of the amendment with expressly delegated was defeated, Connecticut Representative Roger Sherman drafted the Tenth Amendment in its ratified form, shermans language allowed for an expansive reading of the powers implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, I admit they may be deemed unnecessary, but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it, the states decided to ratify the Tenth Amendment, and thus declined to signal that there are unenumerated powers in addition to unenumerated rights. The amendment rendered unambiguous what had previously been at most a mere suggestion or implication, was appended in handwriting by the clerk of the Senate as the Bill of Rights circulated between the two Houses of Congress. The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the government is limited to only the powers granted in the Constitution, has been declared to be a truism by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Sprague the Supreme Court asserted that the amendment added nothing to the as originally ratified. An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby Lumber,312 U. S.100,124, reads as follows, The amendment states, the Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment. In the modern era, the Court has only done so where the government compels the states to enforce federal statutes. In 1992, in New York v. United States,505 U. S.144, for only the time in 55 years. The case challenged a portion of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, the act provided three incentives for states to comply with statutory obligations to provide for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The first two incentives were monetary, the Court, in a 6–3 decision, ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment. However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations, in 1998, the Court again ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States,521 U. S.898. The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct checks on people attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment, since the act forced participation of the States executive in the actual administration of a federal program, it was unconstitutional. Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat, in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, the Court changed the analytic framework to be applied in Tenth Amendment cases

15.
Corwin Amendment
–
It was passed by the 36th Congress on March 2,1861, and submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. Senator William H. Seward of New York introduced the amendment in the Senate and it was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and in an attempt to entice border slave states to stay. Three fifths of all other Persons, The Migration and Importation of such Persons, in the Congressional session that began in December 1860, more than 200 resolutions with respect to slavery, including 57 resolutions proposing constitutional amendments, were introduced in Congress. Most represented compromises designed to military conflict. Mississippi Democratic Senator Jefferson Davis proposed one that protected property rights in slaves. Corwin proposed his own text as a substitute and those who opposed him failed on a vote of 68 to 121, the House then declined to give the resolution the required two-thirds vote, with a tally of 120 to 61, and then of 123 to 71. On February 28,1861, however, the House approved Corwins version by a vote of 133 to 65, missouri Democrat John S. Phelps answered, Does the gentleman desire to know whether he shall be prohibited from committing that crime. On March 2,1861, the United States Senate adopted it, with no changes, since proposed constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority,132 votes were required in the House and 24 in the Senate. The Senators and Representatives from the seven states that had already declared their secession from the Union did not vote on the Corwin Amendment. The resolution called for the amendment to be submitted to the state legislatures, the Corwin Amendment was the second proposed Thirteenth Amendment submitted to the states by Congress. The first was the similarly ill-fated Titles of Nobility Amendment in 1810, out-going President James Buchanan, a Democrat, endorsed the Corwin Amendment by taking the unprecedented step of signing it. Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express, just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln sent a letter to each states governor transmitting the proposed amendment, noting that Buchanan had approved it. On February 8,1864, during the 38th Congress, with the prospects for a Union victory improving, anthony of Rhode Island introduced Senate Resolution No.25 to withdraw the Corwin Amendment from further consideration by the state legislatures and to halt the ratification process. That same day, Anthonys joint resolution was referred to the Senates Committee on the Judiciary, however, West Virginia did not ratify the amendment after it became a state in 1863. The joint resolution was referred to the Houses Committee on Constitutional Amendments on March 7,1963, as a result, the later Reconstruction Amendments would not have been permissible, as they abolish or interfere with the domestic institution of the states. List of amendments to the United States Constitution List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution Slavery in the United States Peace Conference of 1861 Bryant, stopping Time, The Pro-Slavery and Irrevocable Thirteenth Amendment. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, crofts, Daniel W. Lincoln and the Politics of Slavery, The Other Thirteenth Amendment and the Struggle to Save the Union. University of North Carolina Press Books, comprehensive scholarly history of Corwin amendment

16.
Child Labor Amendment
–
Interest in the amendment waned following the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which implemented federal regulation of child labor with the Supreme Courts approval in 1941. The amendment was itself the subject of a 1939 Supreme Court decision, Coleman v. Miller, as Congress did not set a time limit for its ratification, the amendment is still technically pending before the states. Ratification by an additional ten states would be necessary for this amendment to come into force, the Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age. The power of the several States is unimpaired by this article except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to effect to legislation enacted by the Congress. The Supreme Court found this law unconstitutional in Hammer v. Dagenhart, later that year, Congress attempted to levy a tax on businesses with employees under the ages of 14 or 16, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture. It became apparent that an amendment would be necessary for such legislation to overcome the Courts objections. The amendment was offered by Ohio Republican Congressman Israel Moore Foster on April 26,1924, during the 68th Congress, in the form of House Joint Resolution No.184. House Joint Resolution No.184 was adopted by the United States House of Representatives on April 26,1924 and it was then adopted by the Senate on June 2,1924, with a vote of 61 yeas,23 nays and 12 not voting. And with that, the constitutional amendment was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification pursuant to Article V of the Constitution. Although the act, on the part of state legislatures, of rejecting a constitutional amendment has no legal recognition. Presently, there being 50 states in the Union, the amendment will remain inoperative unless it is ratified by an additional 10 states to reach the threshold of 38 states. Only five states adopted the amendment in the 1920s, ten of the states initially balked, then re-examined their position during the 1930s and decided to ratify. The common legal opinion on federal labor regulation reversed in the 1930s. Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 regulating the employment of those under 16 or 18 years of age, after this shift, the amendment has been described as moot and effectively part of the Constitution, the movement for it had concluded. In 1933 J. a 1925 Time magazine article discussing 1920s attempts to ratify the Amendment

17.
District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment
–
This proposed amendment was proposed by the Congress on August 22,1978. It was ratified by only 16 states by the time of its expiration on August 22,1985,22 ratifications short of the needed 38 in order for the amendment to have been adopted. This amendment is also notable for being the most recent amendment to have sent to the states for their consideration. The exercise of the rights and powers conferred under this article shall be by the people of the District constituting the seat of government, the twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. Representative Don Edwards of California proposed House Joint Resolution 554 in the 95th Congress, the United States House of Representatives passed it on March 2,1978, by a 289–127 vote, with 18 not voting. The United States Senate passed it on August 22,1978, by a 67–32 vote, with that, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. By placing the ratification deadline in the text of the amendment the deadline could not be extended. Ratification by the legislatures of at least 38 of the 50 states by August 22,1985, was necessary for the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment to become part of the Constitution. During the seven-year period specified by Congress it was ratified by only 16 states, full representation in both houses of the Congress. Also, this amendment would have repealed the Twenty-third Amendment. In contrast, this amendment would have provided Washington, D. C. full participation in the Electoral College. Finally, the amendment would have also allowed the Council of the District of Columbia. The amendment would neither have made Washington, D. C. a state, District of Columbia voting rights List of amendments to the United States Constitution List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution

18.
History of the United States Constitution
–
The United States Constitution was written in 1787 during the Philadelphia Convention. The old Congress set the rules the new government followed in terms of writing and ratifying the new constitution, after ratification in eleven states, in 1789 its elected officers of government assembled in New York City, replacing the Articles of Confederation government. The original Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times, the meaning of the Constitution is interpreted and extended by judicial review in the federal courts. The original parchment copies are on display at the National Archives Building, two alternative plans were developed in Convention. The nationalist majority, soon to be called Federalists, put forth the Virginia Plan, the old patriots, later called Anti-Federalists, advocated the New Jersey Plan, a purely federal proposal, based on providing each state with equal representation. The Connecticut Compromise allowed for both plans to work together, other controversies developed regarding slavery and a Bill of Rights in the original document. The drafted Constitution was submitted to the Confederation Congress and it in turn forwarded the Constitution as drafted to the states for ratification by the Constitutional method proposed. The Federalist Papers provided background and justification for the Constitution, once the Confederation Congress certified that eleven states had ratified the Constitution, elections were held, the new government began on March 4,1789, and the Articles Congress dissolved itself. Criticism over the life of the Constitution has centered on expanding democracy, Independence was declared on July 4,1776, the preparation of a plan of confederation was postponed. Although the Declaration was a statement of principles, it did not create a government or even a framework for how politics would be carried out and it was the Articles of Confederation that provided the necessary structure to the new nation during and after the American Revolution. The Declaration, however, did set forth the ideas of natural rights, the era of the Declaration of Independence is sometimes called the Continental Congress period. John Adams famously estimated as many as one-third of those resident in the thirteen colonies were patriots. Republican government and personal liberty for the people were to overspread the New World continents and to last forever and these goals were influenced by Enlightenment philosophy. It was rooted in opposition to monarchy they saw as venal, to these partisans, voting was the only permanent defense of the people. Elected terms for legislature were cut to one year, for Virginias Governor, property requirements for suffrage for men were reduced to taxes on their tools in some states. Free blacks in New York could vote if they owned enough property, New Hampshire was thinking of abolishing all voting requirements for men but residency and religion. In some states, senators were now elected by the voters as the larger electorate for the House. These radical Whigs were called the people out-of-doors and they distrusted not only royal authority, but any small, secretive group as being unrepublican

19.
Constitutional Convention (United States)
–
The Constitutional Convention took place from May 25 to September 17,1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The delegates elected George Washington to preside over the Convention, the result of the Convention was the creation of the United States Constitution, placing the Convention among the most significant events in the history of the United States. Most of the time during the Convention was spent on deciding these issues, while the powers of legislature, executive, once the Convention began, the delegates first agreed on the principles of the Convention, then they agreed on Madisons Virginia Plan and began to modify it. A Committee of Detail assembled during the July 4 recess eventually produced a draft of the constitution. Most of the draft remained in place, and can be found in the final version of the constitution. After the final issues were resolved, the Committee on Style produced the final version, before the Constitution was drafted, the nearly 4 million inhabitants of the 13 newly independent states were governed under the Articles of Confederation, created by the Second Continental Congress. It soon became evident to all that the chronically underfunded Confederation government. As the Articles of Confederation could only be amended by unanimous vote of the states, in addition, the Articles gave the weak federal government no taxing power, it was wholly dependent on the states for its money, and had no power to force delinquent states to pay. Once the immediate task of winning the American Revolutionary War had passed, the states began to look to their own interests, another impetus for the convention was Shays Rebellion. A political conflict between Boston merchants and rural farmers over issues such as property seizures for tax debts had broken out into an open rebellion. This rebellion was led by a former Revolutionary War captain, Daniel Shays, himself a farmer with tax debts. The rebellion took months for Massachusetts to put down completely, in September 1786, at the Annapolis Convention, delegates from five states called for a Constitutional Convention in order to discuss possible improvements to the Articles of Confederation. The Constitutional Convention took place in Philadelphia on May 14,1787, Rhode Island, fearing that the Convention would work to its disadvantage, boycotted the Convention and, when the Constitution was put to the states, initially refused to ratify it. James Madison arrived first, and soon most of the Virginia delegation arrived, while waiting for the other delegates, the Virginia delegation produced the Virginia Plan, which was designed and written by James Madison. On May 25, the delegations convened in the Pennsylvania State House, George Washington was unanimously elected president of the Convention, and it was agreed that the discussions and votes would be kept secret until the conclusion of the meeting. Although William Jackson was elected as secretary, his records were brief, Madisons Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, supplemented by the notes of Robert Yates, remain the most complete record of the Convention. Throughout the debate, delegates constantly referred to precedents from history in support of their position, most commonly, they referred to the history of England, in particular the Glorious Revolution, classical history, and recent precedents from Holland and Germany. Outside the Convention in Philadelphia, there was a convening of the Society of the Cincinnati

20.
Signing of the United States Constitution
–
Included are, a statement pronouncing the documents adoption by the states present, a formulaic dating of its adoption, along with the signatures of those endorsing it. Additionally, the secretary, William Jackson, signed the document to authenticate the validity of the delegate signatures. He also made a few secretarial notes and it was feared that many of the delegates would refuse to give their individual assent to the Constitution. Therefore, in order that the action of the Convention would appear to be unanimous, Constitution lays out the frame of the nations federal government and delineates how its 3 branches are to function. Of those who signed it, virtually every one had taken part in the American Revolution, seven had signed the Declaration of Independence, in general, they represented a cross-section of 18th-century American leadership, with individuals having experience in local or colonial and state government. Jonathan Dayton, age 26, was the youngest to sign the Constitution, while Benjamin Franklin, on July 24,1787 convention delegates selected a Committee of Detail to write-up a draft a draft constitution reflective of the resolutions passed by the convention up to that point. The final report of this committee, a twenty-three article document, overall, the draft produced by the committee conformed to the resolutions adopted by the Convention, adding some elements. Even after it issued this report, the continued to meet off. The draft constitution was discussed, section by section and clause by clause, details were attended to, and further compromises were effected. On September 8,1787, a Committee of Style, with different members, was impaneled to distill a final draft constitution from the twenty-three approved articles, the committee also presented a proposed letter to accompany the constitution when delivered to the Congress of the Confederation. The final document, engrossed by Jacob Shallus, was taken up on Monday, September 17, several delegates were disappointed by the numerous compromises contained in the final document, believing that they had impaired its quality. Alexander Hamilton called the Constitution a weak and worthless fabric, certain to be superseded, luther Martin regarded it as a stab in the back of the goddess of liberty. In all, twelve of the thirteen states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention, several attendees left before the signing ceremony, and three that did not refused to sign. He would accept the Constitution, because I expect no better, the closing endorsement of the U. S. Constitution serves a function only. It neither assigns powers to the government nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. It does however, provide essential documentation of the Constitutions validity and it records who signed the Constitution, plus when and where they signed. It also describes the role played by the signers in developing the document, due to this limited function, it is frequently overlooked and no court has ever cited it when reaching a judicial decision

21.
Federalism in the United States
–
Federalism in the United States is the constitutional relationship between U. S. state governments and the national government of the United States. Since the founding of the country, and particularly with the end of the American Civil War, power shifted away from the states, the progression of federalism includes dual, state-centered, and new federalism. Federalism was a solution for the problems with the Articles of Confederation which gave little practical authority to the federal government. The movement was strengthened by the reaction to Shays Rebellion of 1786–1787. The rebellion was fueled by an economy that was created, in part. Moreover, the government had proven incapable of raising an army to quell the rebellion. This convention almost immediately dropped its original mandate and instead set about constructing a new Constitution of the United States, once the convention concluded and released the Constitution for public consumption, the Federalist movement became focused on getting the Constitution ratified. The Federalist Papers remain one of the most important set of documents in American history and those opposed to the new Constitution became known as the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalist critique soon centered on the absence of a bill of rights, because George Washington lent his prestige to the Constitution and because of the ingenuity and organizational skills of its proponents, the Constitution was ratified by all the states. The outgoing Congress of the Confederation scheduled elections for the new government, in 1789, Congress submitted twelve articles of amendment to the states. Ten of these articles, written by congressional committees, achieved passage on December 15,1791, the Tenth Amendment set the guidelines for federalism in the United States. As soon as the first Federalist movement dissipated, a second one sprang up to take its place and this one was based on the policies of Alexander Hamilton and his allies for a stronger national government, a loose construction of the Constitution, and a mercantile economy. While the Federalist movement of the 1780s and the Federalist Party were distinct entities, the Democratic-Republican Party, the opposition to the Federalist Party, emphasized the fear that a strong national government was a threat to the liberties of the people. They stressed that the debt created by the new government would bankrupt the country. These themes resonated with the Anti-Federalists, the opposition to the Federalist movement of the 1780s, as Norman Risjord has documented for Virginia, of the supporters of the Constitution in 1788, 69% joined the Federalist party, while nearly all of the opponents joined the Republicans. 71% of Thomas Jeffersons supporters in Virginia were former anti-federalists who continued to fear centralized government, in short, nearly all of the opponents of the Federalist movement became opponents of the Federalist Party. The movement reached its zenith with the election of an overtly Federalist President, however, with the defeat of Adams in the election of 1800 and the death of Hamilton, the Federalist Party began a long decline from which it never recovered. The threat of secession was also proposed during these secret meetings, three delegates were sent to Washington, DC to negotiate New Englands terms only to discover the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, ending the war with the British

22.
Republicanism in the United States
–
Republicanism is the guiding political philosophy of the United States. It has been a part of American civic thought since its founding. American republicanism was founded and first practiced by the Founding Fathers in the 18th century, for them, according to one team of historians, republicanism represented more than a particular form of government. It was a way of life, an ideology, an uncompromising commitment to liberty. Republicanism was based on Ancient Greco-Roman, Renaissance, and English models and it formed the basis for the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, as well as the Gettysburg Address. The term republicanism is derived from the republic, but the two words have different meanings. A republic is a form of government, republicanism refers to the values of the citizens in a republic, two major parties have used the term in their name – the Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson, and the current Republican Party, founded in 1854. The colonial intellectual and political leaders in the 1760s and 1770s closely read history to compare governments, the Revolutionists were especially concerned with the history of liberty in England and were primarily influenced by the country party. Country party relied heavily on the classical republicanism of Roman heritage, it celebrated the ideals of duty and it drew heavily on ancient Greek city-state and Roman republican examples. This approach produced a political ideology Americans called republicanism, which was widespread in America by 1775, Republicanism was the distinctive political consciousness of the entire Revolutionary generation. American republicanism was centered on limiting corruption and greed, Virtue was of the utmost importance for citizens and representatives. Revolutionaries took a lesson from ancient Rome, they knew it was necessary to avoid the luxury that had destroyed the Empire, a virtuous citizen was one who ignored monetary compensation and made a commitment to resist and eradicate corruption. The Republic was sacred, therefore, it is necessary to serve the state in a representative way, ignoring self-interest. Republicanism required the service of those who were willing to give up their own interests for a common good, virtuous citizens needed to be strong defenders of liberty and challenge the corruption and greed in government. The duty of the virtuous citizen became a foundation for the American Revolution, the commitment of most Americans to republican values and to their property rights helped bring about the American Revolution. The greatest threat to liberty was thought by many to be corruption – not just in London, the colonists associated it with luxury and, especially, inherited aristocracy, which they condemned. Historian Thomas Kidd argues that during the Revolution Christians linked their religion to republicanism and he states, With the onset of the revolutionary crisis, a major conceptual shift convinced Americans across the theological spectrum that God was raising up America for some special purpose. Kidd further argues that new blend of Christian and republican ideology led religious traditionalists to embrace wholesale the concept of republican virtue, as virtuous republicans, citizens had a growing moral obligation to eradicate the corruption they saw in the monarchy

23.
National Archives and Records Administration
–
The NARA also transmits votes of the Electoral College to Congress. The chief administrator of NARA is the Archivist of the United States, the Archivist of the United States is the chief official overseeing the operation of the National Archives and Records Administration. The Archivist not only maintains the official documentation of the passage of amendments to the U. S, Constitution by state legislatures, but has the authority to declare when the constitutional threshold for passage has been reached, and therefore when an act has become an amendment. The Office of the Federal Register publishes the Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations and it also administers the Electoral College. Since 1964, the NHPRC has awarded some 4,500 grants, the Office of Government Information Services is a Freedom of Information Act resource for the public and the government. Congress has charged NARA with reviewing FOIA policies, procedures and compliance of Federal agencies, NARAs mission also includes resolving FOIA disputes between Federal agencies and requesters. Originally, each branch and agency of the U. S. government was responsible for maintaining its own documents, Congress established the National Archives Establishment in 1934 to centralize federal record keeping, with the Archivist of the United States as chief administrator. The National Archives was incorporated with GSA in 1949, in 1985 it became an independent agency as NARA, connor, began serving in 1934, when the National Archives was established by Congress. As a result of a first Hoover Commission recommendation, in 1949 the National Archives was placed within the newly formed General Services Administration. The Archivist served as an official to the GSA Administrator until the National Archives. An audit indicated that more than one third withdrawn since 1999 did not contain sensitive information, the program was originally scheduled to end in 2007. In 2011, a retired employee pleaded guilty to stealing original sound recordings from the archives, Archival Recovery Teams investigate the theft of records. NARAs holdings are classed into record groups reflecting the governmental department or agency from which they originated, Records include paper documents, microfilm, still pictures, motion pictures, and electronic media. Archival descriptions of the permanent holdings of the government in the custody of NARA are stored in the National Archives Catalog. The archival descriptions include information on traditional paper holdings, electronic records, as of December 2012, the catalog consisted of about 10 billion logical data records describing 527,000 artifacts and encompassing 81% of NARAs records. There are also 922,000 digital copies of already digitized materials, most records at NARA are in the public domain, as works of the federal government are excluded from copyright protection. However, records from other sources may still be protected by copyright or donor agreements and its Information Security Oversight Office monitors and sets policy for the U. S. governments security classification system. Many of NARAs most requested records are used for genealogy research

24.
Federal government of the United States
–
The Federal Government of the United States is the national government of the United States, a republic in North America, composed of 50 states, one district, Washington, D. C. and several territories. The federal government is composed of three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, whose powers are vested by the U. S. Constitution in the Congress, the President, and the courts, including the Supreme Court. The powers and duties of these branches are defined by acts of Congress. The full name of the republic is United States of America, no other name appears in the Constitution, and this is the name that appears on money, in treaties, and in legal cases to which it is a party. The terms Government of the United States of America or United States Government are often used in documents to represent the federal government as distinct from the states collectively. In casual conversation or writing, the term Federal Government is often used, the terms Federal and National in government agency or program names generally indicate affiliation with the federal government. Because the seat of government is in Washington, D. C, Washington is commonly used as a metonym for the federal government. The outline of the government of the United States is laid out in the Constitution, the government was formed in 1789, making the United States one of the worlds first, if not the first, modern national constitutional republics. The United States government is based on the principles of federalism and republicanism, some make the case for expansive federal powers while others argue for a more limited role for the central government in relation to individuals, the states or other recognized entities. For example, while the legislative has the power to create law, the President nominates judges to the nations highest judiciary authority, but those nominees must be approved by Congress. The Supreme Court, in its turn, has the power to invalidate as unconstitutional any law passed by the Congress and these and other examples are examined in more detail in the text below. The United States Congress is the branch of the federal government. It is bicameral, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate, the House currently consists of 435 voting members, each of whom represents a congressional district. The number of each state has in the House is based on each states population as determined in the most recent United States Census. All 435 representatives serve a two-year term, each state receives a minimum of one representative in the House. There is no limit on the number of terms a representative may serve, in addition to the 435 voting members, there are six non-voting members, consisting of five delegates and one resident commissioner. In contrast, the Senate is made up of two senators from each state, regardless of population, there are currently 100 senators, who each serve six-year terms

Eighteenth-century illustration of perjurer John Waller pilloried and pelted to death in London, 1732

Combined pillory and whipping post in New Castle County Jail, Delaware, 1907. The pillory sits in an elevated position to increase its visibility, while the whipping post is at ground level to provide more room for the whipper.

James Madison, primary author and chief advocate for the Bill of Rights in the First Congress.

George Washington's 1788 letter to the Marquis de Lafayette observed, "the Convention of Massachusetts adopted the Constitution in toto; but recommended a number of specific alterations and quieting explanations." Source: Library of Congress